DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the first notch grooves and second notch grooves are formed on the surface of the thrust disc” (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 – 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, “when it rotates” should read - - when the rotor rotates - -.
Claim 7, line 1, “wherein further comprises” should read - - further comprising - -.
Claim 8, line 1, “wherein further comprises” should read - - further comprising - -.
Claim 9, line 3, “disk” (first and second occurrence) should read - - disc - -.
Claim 9, line 3, “its edge” should read - - an edge of the thrust disc - -
Claim 11, lines 1 – 2, “the first notch grooves and second notch grooves are formed on the surface of the thrust disc” should read - - the second notch grooves are formed on the surface of the thrust disc - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 10, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each set of second notch grooves" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the thrust grooves" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected due to their dependence on claims 9 and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 15, 17 – 20 and 22, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gashi USPGPUB 20230150010.
Claim 1, Gashi an air-bearing (Fig. 3), comprising: two sets of first notch grooves (ribs or grooves 32)([0033], l. 20) which are symmetrically arranged at two ends of a rotor (rotor structure 16)([0031], ll. 4 – 5), wherein each set of the first notch grooves comprise multiple radial grooves distributed circumferentially around the rotor, and the radial grooves are in a bending shape to form an air film to support the rotor when the rotor rotates ([0033], ll. 17 – 21: “[t]he front radial bearing 18 and the rear radial bearing 22 are aerodynamic bearings, and the shaft 7 has, facing the front 18 and rear 22 radial bearings, second grooves or ribs 32 arranged to create an air or gas film when the shaft is rotated in the air or gas radial bearings”).
Claim 2, Gashi discloses the radial grooves being uniformly distributed in the circumferential direction of the rotor; and/or the radial grooves being in a bent shape.
Claim 3, Gashi discloses the bending direction of the radial grooves 32 being opposite to the rotation direction of the rotor (bending direction is construed as the direction in which the legs of the groove 32 diverge away from the apex of the groove, which is opposite to the counterclockwise rotation of rotor based the orientation of impeller 10).
Claim 4, Gashi discloses the radial grooves as herringbone grooves.
Claim 6, the recitation “the radial grooves are formed on the surface of the rotor by laser or chemical etching” describes the method of making the product. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected since all claim limitations have been met as disclosed above (MPEP 2113).
Claim 7, Gashi discloses dam areas, the dam areas are arranged at two ends (two ends of shaft 7)([0034], ll. 3 – 4) of the rotor 16, and the first notch grooves 32 are arranged on the surface of the dam areas.
Claim 8, Gashi discloses a thrust disc (axial bearing 24), the thrust disc is arranged at the end of the rotor, and one set of second notch grooves (first grooves 24)(Fig. 4)([0033], l. 6) is mirror symmetrically provided respectively on two sides of the thrust disc to drive gas flow when the rotor rotates ([0033], ll. 8 – 11: “the axial bearing 24 comprises preferably spiral-shaped grooves or ribs 24a at the periphery of the disc of the axial bearing 24 on a front face and on a rear face”), forming a local high-pressure at the center of the thrust disc (inherent to pumping effect of grooves 24a during shaft rotation – [0033], ll. 14 – 17: “[t]he axial bearing 24 with its grooves or ribs 24a keeps the rotating shaft 7 longitudinally centred by generating air films from the front face and rear face”).
Claim 9, Gashi discloses each set of second notch grooves 32 comprising a plurality of thrust grooves circumferentially uniformly distributed around the center of the thrust disk, the thrust grooves extending from the center of the thrust disk toward the edge of the thrust disk, and the thrust grooves are curvilinear grooves.
Claim 11, the recitation “the second notch grooves are formed on the surface of the thrust disc through laser or chemical etching” describes the method of making the product. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected since all claim limitations have been met as disclosed above (MPEP 2113).
Claims 12 – 15, 17 – 20 and 22, Gashi discloses a centrifugal refrigeration compressor ([0052]: “[t]he centrifugal compressor can also be used in a stationary system with a refrigerant gas such as a heat pump”), comprising the air-bearings of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 16 and 21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gashi USPGPUB 20230150010.
Claim 5, Gashi does not expressly disclose the depth of the radial grooves being 8 to 20 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radial grooves of Gashi, such that the depth of the radial grooves is 8 to 20 micrometers, since it was been held that where the general conditions of a claim (an air bearing comprising radial grooves for generating an air or gas film during shaft rotation) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10, Gashi does not expressly disclose the depth of the thrust grooves being 8 to 20 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thrust grooves of Gashi, such that the depth of the thrust grooves is 8 to 20 micrometers, since it was been held that where the general conditions of a claim (an air bearing comprising a thrust disk including thrust grooves for generating an air or gas film during shaft rotation) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 16 and 21, Gashi discloses a centrifugal refrigeration compressor ([0052]), comprising the air-bearings of claims 5 and 10, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILLIP A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617